asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to say when he will nominate the Members of the proposed Royal Commission on Merchant Shipping and on the Administration of the Marino Department of the Board of Trade; and, whether he will postpone further legislation until the Commission has made its Report?

The proposed Commission on Merchant Shipping and on the Administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade is not likely to meet till after the Parliamentary Recess. The nomination is a matter requiring great care and deliberation; and I am unable to say when I shall find it possible to complete my recommendation for submission to Her Majesty. As regards further legislation, I can only say that, the Merchant Shipping Bill having been withdrawn, there is no other proposal affecting the subject before the House; but I cannot anticipate the future course of the Government in reference to this matter.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the names on the Table before the end of the Session, so that the House would be able to express an opinion on them? He also wished to know whether the Reference would be of a broad and comprehensive character, so as to include an inquiry into all questions connected with the Mercantile Marine, Seamen, and Merchant Shipping Department of the Board of Trade?

expressed the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that the names of those who were to be placed on the Commission would be laid before Parliament before the Prorogation.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would take care that the Members of the Commission would be practical men of unbiassed minds, and unconnected in any way with the Board of Trade; and, whether he would take care that the Commission should inquire into the law and practice of marine insurance, the administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade, the condition of the seamen, and the number of wrecks and casualties?

said, in regard to the Question of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer), he had already stated what would be the nature of the Reference to the Commission, and he had nothing further to add. As to the Questions of the other hon. Members, in regard to the position of the Members of the Commission, he had to say he should endeavour to make such appointments to the Commission as would command the confidence of the public for the knowledge and impartiality of its Members. Beyond that it was impossible to give any assurance.

asked what opportunity would be given to those against whom the right hon. Gentleman had made charges of replying to those charges in case the Merchant Shipping Act was withdrawn?

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered his Question as to when the Members of the Commission would be appointed?

said, he had already told the hon. Member he could not give him any assurance. As to the Question of the right hon. Baronet opposite, he might say there was a Question of a similar kind standing in the name of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver); and probably in answering that Question he should sufficiently reply to the right hon. Baronet.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the Belfast Workhouse Chaplain's Report, as contained in the newspaper accounts of the proceedings of the Belfast Board of Guardians of the 24th June 1884, in which the Belfast Workhouse Schools were described as being "in a most horrible and filthy condition," and that blankets and other valuable bedding of the schools had been wantonly destroyed by a number of schoolboys who had been unwarrantably locked up for many hours in one of the wings of the school buildings; is it a fact that the schoolmasters admitted their incapacity to govern these schools; is it true that they were continued in office notwithstanding; is the schoolmaster, Mr. Spratt, the same person who broke Charles Wainwright's arm on 9th November 1883; is the schoolmaster, Mr. Madden, who recently prosecuted a Catholic pupil for insubordination, and who since refused to prosecute a Protestant pupil (because of his religion) on a similar charge (although ordered to do so by the workhouse master), the same person who was charged with cursing the Pope in the public streets, and fined by the late J. C. O'Donnell, R.M. for said offence; and, will he inquire whether either of these teachers should be continued in office?

It is a fact that reports have been made showing that the Belfast Workhouse School is not in a satisfactory condition. Complaints have been made as to the rooms having been found in a filthy condition, and as to bedding having been maliciously destroyed by the boys. I believe there is no evidence to show that the schoolmasters ever admitted their incapacity to govern the schools. They are still in office; but some days ago the Local Government Board communicated to the Guardians their opinion that they should take into consideration the propriety of making a complete change in the staff of masters. A special committee of the Guardians has been appointed to consider and report on their recommendation. This committee will meet to-day. With regard to the specific complaints against the teachers, mentioned in the Question, it appears that Mr. Spratt is the person who was alleged to have broken a boy's arm last November; but the Local Government Board Inspector reports that the matter was fully investigated by the Guardians, who found the occurrence was purely accidental. As regards Mr. Madden, there are no grounds for the statement that he prosecuted a Roman Catholic boy. He declined to prosecute a Protestant boy for assault, because it was very trivial, and he did not wish to bring a boy into Court for so slight an offence. He was fined, as stated in the Question, four years ago.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there is any truth in the report that the Indian Government contemplate an important increase in the Army in India; and, whether the Secretary of State for India has signified his approval of that step?

, in reply, said, no communication had been received at the India Office from the Government of India from which it could be inferred that they contemplated making any increase in the Army in India.

asked, If it is the fact that Thomas J. Bowers, of the Board of Works Office, Dublin, enjoys a practical immunity from official work; that he acts as agent to the National Assurance Company, and as secretary to the Brunswick Building Society; and that a screen in the window of his house in Great Brunswick Street announces that he likewise carries on the profession of "Auctioneer, House, and Land Agent;" is he also secretary to the Grand Orange Lodge; under what circumstances was he able to attend sheriffs' sales as representative of the Emergency or Property Defence Associations; is it the case that he served on a Green Street special jury last year, contrary to the rule that Government employées are exempt; why the Board took no steps to have him struck off the jury list; will the Government insist that he shall either resign his numerous outside avocations or his post on the Board of Works; and, what notice has been taken of the breach of official regulations?

, in reply, said, that the person referred to was a messenger in the Office of the Board of Works, and he appeared to have earned a good character for regularity and attention to his duties. He was the agent for the National Assurance Company and secretary to the Building Society, the last of which duties required him to attend one meeting every three or four weeks. The agency of the Assurance Company was almost entirely confined to the delivery of circulars, and all these duties were performed after his official hours. The notice in the window belonged to a lodger in the house, and not himself. He was not secretary to the Grand Orange Lodge. He had not lately attended any Sheriff's sale.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware that the suggestion lately made by him as a settlement of the Donegal Workhouse question, namely, to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher has not been acted on, and that the guardians evincing such opposition to the appointment of even one Catholic official have recently elected a Presbyterian chaplain for the single child of that denomination in the workhouse; has the Local Government Board sanctioned that appointment; and, will the Chief Secretary, through the Local Government Board, appoint, by sealed order, a Catholic assistant teacher; and, in view of the feeling that exists against the conduct of the guardians, appoint vice-guardians in their stead, who will carry on the poor law system of the union?

I have received Reports which show that there is every reason to hope that this matter is in a fair way of being promptly settled, either by the appointment by the Board of Guardians of a Catholic assistant teacher, or by some other arrangement which will give satisfaction to the persons concerned. I understand that it is the case that the Guardians recently proposed to appoint a Presbyterian chaplain to the workhouse; but the Local Government Board declined to approve such an appointment, as they did not consider it necessary.

Might I ask if it is not the fact that these Guardians have refused to entertain this recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman lately?

said, that in consequence of representations which had been made, the Local Government Board had their attention directed to the subject of these appointments, and it was hoped that arrangements would soon be made which would satisfy everybody.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he has perused the Letter of the Secretary of the Highland Land Law Reform Association, dated the 10th of June, forwarding for his information cases in which notice of eviction had been served upon certain tenants in Skye and in South Uist, as they allege, because they or their relatives had given evidence, or were appointed to give evidence, before the Royal Commission, or because they were members of the above named Association; if his special attention has been called to the cases of Angus M'Clean, John M'Clean, and also to the case of Donald Colquhoun, of Tohrmary, in which the allegation of his landlord, Mr. Allan, that he was in arrears, was disproved by the production of his rent book; and, if he will order an investigation into these cases, and lay the result upon the Table of the House?

I have read the letter referred to, and made inquiry into the three cases mentioned. I am informed that Angus M'Lean was nearly three years in arrear with his rent. The rent was £6, and the arrears upwards of £17. I have not been able to find that a summons of removing was served upon any person named John M'Lean. I find that Donald Colquhoun was in arrear of his rent, and that during the eight years in which he had been a tenant on Mr. Allan's estate the rent had been paid with great irregularity. I understand that he did not give evidence before the Royal Commission.

inquired who was the authority on whom the Lord Advocate relied in saying the man was in arrear? He further asked whether one of these men had not forwarded his rent-book to the Commissioners, and had satisfied them that he was not in arrear?

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would inform him of the passage in the Report to which he referred, he would cause further inquiry to be made.

said, the reference to this case was to be found on page 440 of the Reports of the Commissioners.

inquired whether the Lord Advocate would, in future, make an independent inquiry in such cases, instead of going to the persons whose conduct was called in question?

said, he was not aware there had been any impeachment of the conduct of any persons.

asked whether the Lord Advocate would make special inquiry whether the arrears alleged to exist in one of the cases were taken over from the preceding tenant under the system denounced by the Royal Commission?

said, he would inquire into the matter, and give information upon a subsequent date.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an officer who failed to pass his examination for promotion in January 1884 will, if he passes the new simplified examination, be allowed to resume his former position in his regiment above those junior to him who did pass the examination in January 1884, and have been promoted over him?

, in reply, said, it was better to defer a decision in such a case until it arose. There was only one regiment in which the case referred to could occur; but it was better to wait until it occurred, and not decide on a hypothetical question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd, as acting Minister of the Interior, took any practical steps, as desired by the inhabitants of Alexandria and Damietta, to improve the sanitary condition of those cities; whether, during his administration in Egypt, he ever submitted any, and, if so, what scheme to the British or Egyptian authorities for the purpose of dealing summarily, or otherwise, with prisoners waiting for trial; whether the Egyptian Government opposed or interfered with the reforms effected in the prisons at Cairo by Dr. Crookshank; and, whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd, when conferring with the National Assembly, opposed free discussion, and invariably vetoed the decisions of the majority when contrary to his own views?

said, that, before the noble Lord answered the Question, he should wish to ask whether it was not the case that Mr. Clifford Lloyd did submit a complete sanitary scheme, which gave satisfaction to the inhabitants of Alexandria and of Damietta, but which was suppressed by Nubar Pasha?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not Acting Minister of the Interior, but Under Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Interior. In that capacity he made certain recommendations in relation to sanitary reforms in Alexandria, which were adopted by the Minister of the Interior. Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any scheme submitted by Mr. Clifford Lloyd for dealing summarily, or otherwise, with prisoners waiting for trial; but he released a certain number without trial. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Egyptian Government opposed or interfered with Dr. Crookshank's proceedings in relation to prison reform in Cairo. Her Majesty's Government have no information confirming the statements in the fourth paragraph of the hon. Member's Question.

asked whether the noble Lord would make inquiry into the course pursued by Mr. Clifford Lloyd when conferring with the National Assembly?

I do not think that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct could well be made a subject of inquiry by the Foreign Office, especially as he is no longer in an official position in Egypt.

asked whether the Government would inquire whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd did submit a scheme for sanitary improvement, which was suppressed by Nubar Pasha?

I said that he made certain recommendations, which were adopted by the Minister of the Interior; but whether they were carried out or not I cannot say.

Is not Mr. Clifford Lloyd receiving pay from the Egyptian Government as being in its service?

The Question is not upon the Paper.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that in the whole Bawnboy Union, which comprises the Petty Sessions Districts of Ballmamore, Ballyconnell, Bawnboy, and Swanlinbar, there is not one Roman Catholic magistrate; did the Board of Guardians of the Bawnboy Union, some two months since, recommend five gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor as fit and proper persons for the Commission of the Peace; and, what steps, if any, have been taken by the Lord Chancellor towards appointing these or other Roman Catholics in the Bawnboy Union?

There are no Roman Catholic magistrates in the Union mentioned in the Question. The Lord Chancellor informs me that he received a communication, as stated, from the Guardians of the Union, and immediately informed them, in reply, that until they had received replies from the Lord Lieutenant of the County he could not take any action in the matter. The Lord Chancellor has not since heard from the Guardians on the subject.

was understood to ask what action the Lord Chancellor would take in case the Lord Lieutenant of the County did not appoint these gentlemen?

replied, that he should think the first action the Lord Chancellor would take would be to ask why he had not done so.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Henry Carter, a member of the Coast Brigade, stationed at Sandycove Tower, near Dalkey, county Dublin, is in the habit of doing gardening and other work for gentlemen resident in the neighbourhood; whether, for this purpose, he leaves the Tower at nine or ten o'clock in the morning, and does not return until five or six in the evening; whether members of the Coastguard Service, stationed at Dalkey, do whitewashing, painting, &c. for persons who may employ them, and take contracts for doing such work; and, whether it is compatible, with the regulations of the service, that members of the Coast Brigade or Coastguard should occupy their time in working for private employers, and thereby interfere with the regular market for civil industry and trade?

Sir, Sandycove Tower is in charge of a detachment of the Coast Brigade, Royal Artillery, and any Question concerning the conduct of the men stationed there will, no doubt, be answered by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War. As regards the Coastguardsmen at Dalkey, careful local inquiry has been made in consequence of the hon. Member's Question. The result is that nothing can be heard of at all corresponding to the allegations in question, except that quite recently the men have in their own time lent a hand to prepare for the local Regatta, in helping to rig and paint a flagstaff, and also the band-stand. Both of these items of work have been done by request, not as a bargain, nor with any understanding as to payment. I can find no trace of any whitewashing.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to a conviction for assault obtained at the Ennis Petty Sessions of June 20th last, against a Constable Fitzgerald, stationed on duty at Clare Castle, county Clare; if it was proved that Fitzgerald wan- tonly assaulted Mr. Denis Moylan by striking him on the head with a stick, and was accordingly fined by the magistrates; if it was stated on oath that, upon the day the assault was committed (it being on Sunday), Fitzgerald had journeyed through several neighbouring villages, entering public houses regularly for the purpose of partaking of intoxicants; and if, upon his return to Clare Castle, in contravention to the Closing of Public Houses on Sunday (Ireland) Act, he went with others to a public house to drink; if there are any regulations in force in the Royal Irish Constabulary by means of which a policeman proved to have violated the Licensing Law, may be punished; and, if, in view of Fitzgerald's double offence, it is proposed to retain him in the force?

Constable Fitzgerald was fined 10s. 6d. for an assault, which the Chairman of the Bench, in passing sentence, described as "a very slight one." He was twice summoned, for the same alleged offence; and on the first occasion the magistrates disagreed as to whether any assault at all had been committed. On the day of the occurrence the constable drove with his sister and one of his comrades to the villages of Newmarket and Quinn, and, on their return to Clare Castle, entered a public-house where his sister was lodging. It was not sworn that the constable drank at the public-house at Clare Castle; and as the other villages were five miles distant, there was no violation of the Licensing Laws. The constable is retained in the Force. Having regard to the trivial nature of the assault, the Inspector General considered him sufficiently punished by the fine; but cautioned him severely as to his future conduct.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that, while the interest on the public debt of Egypt is at the rate of four or five per cent. that on the village debts is at forty to fifty; whether payment of these exorbitant rates of interest is enforced by the mixed tribunals under British protection; whether the benefit to the fellaheen from any practicable reduction of the interest on the public debt will bear more than an insignificant proportion to their liabilities, unless relief is also given in the case of that due to Foreign usurers; whether these liabilities were incurred by the peasantry through no fault of their own, but partly through over taxation in the late reign, partly through exacting the full amount of taxes in the autumn of 1882, notwithstanding the serious losses entailed upon the peasantry by the Arabi revolt; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will keep these facts in view, and exert their influence at the Conference to obtain such modification of the law of the mixed tribunals in financial causes as may give relief in the case of debts due to Foreign usurers as well as in the case of the public debt?

The rate of interest on Egyptian Stock at present prices is more than 5 per cent. and there can be no doubt that the rate on village debts largely exceeds that amount. The payment of these debts is liable to be enforced by the Mixed Tribunals, which, however, are not specially under British protection more than under that of any other of the 14 Powers, who were parties to their creation. It would, I think, be difficult to enter into the matters alluded to in the third and fourth paragraphs of my hon. Friend's Question within the limits usually assigned to an answer. The subject will not, I conceive, be brought before the Conference; but it has been fully considered by the International Commission which recently sat, with a view to the revision of the Codes administered by the Mixed Courts. That Commission proposed certain changes in the law which will, it is believed, benefit the debtor class.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the serious machinery accident on Wednesday last at the Health Exhibition; whether the manufacturing part of the Exhibition has been inspected by the Factory and Workshop Inspectors; and, whether the Law as to the hours of labour in factories are observed at the Health Exhibition?

The accident seems to have been due to the man's own carelessness. Whatever may be the legal position of Exhibitions of this kind, they are always inspected by the Factory and Workshop Inspectors; and I understand from those gentlemen that the machinery at the Health Exhibition is very well secured. With regard to the hours of labour at the Exhibition there is no foundation for the suggestion that those employed there are overworked?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he proposes, at an early date, to give effect, by the necessary legislation, to the Report of the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies?

, in reply, said, the expression "at an early date" was somewhat ambiguous. The intentions of the Government were dependent upon many circumstances, some of which were not yet determined. Therefore he could not answer the Question very definitely; but he would say that the Government were not only willing, but anxious, to deal with the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the result of the inquiry into charges alleged against Mr. Dagg and George Driver, the Returning Officer and Boor Rate Collector, at the late election of guardians for Baltinglass Union, which he stated, on a former occasion, would be held on 7th May last?

The inquiry was held as I stated, and its result was communicated to the complainant, Mr. Kenna, on the 17th of May last. The complainant was afforded ample opportunity at the inquiry of proving the validity of the objections raised by him to the Return made by the Returning Officer. The conclusion arrived at by the Local Government Board was that the candidate returned had a majority of valid votes; and although there were some errors of judgment on the part of the Returning Officer, they did not affect the result of the election, and it did not appear that he had acted otherwise than in good faith, or that his conduct, or that of the collector referred to, was deserving of censure on that occasion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the result of the investigation which he stated, in reply to a Question on the 8th May last, was being held by the Local Government Board, in regard to the election of a Poor Law Guardian for the Altidon Electoral Division of the Rathdrum Union?

The Local Government Board inform me that the explanation of the Returning Officer in this case showed that he had acted properly. A copy of the explanation was sent to the complainant on the 14th of May last.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Officers of the Indian Military Service, who came home on furlough between 1868 and 1871 draw their pay, when on furlough, at an exchange of 2s. for the rupee, whereas officers who remained at their posts till after 1871, and who, taking advantage of General Order of 19th June 1868, elected on their taking leave to abide by the new rules of exchange, are permitted to draw only at the current rate of exchange for the year, thereby losing this year nearly twenty per cent; and, if it is proposed to take any steps to give these officers redress in respect of such loss?

It is the case that those officers of the Indian Army who elected the new furlough rules of 1868 before July 1, 1871, when a change was made in the condition of the rules, are permitted to continue under the benefits of the conditions in force when they elected. Those who elected the rules of 1868, after July 1, 1871—that is, after the conditions were changed—abide by the rules in force when they elected. The election was optional to officers on taking furlough; and those doing so after July 1, 1871, had the option of continuing under the earlier rules of 1854, or of accepting the modified conditions of the rules of 1868. But they had not the option of electing a particular rule which had been formally abrogated. There is no intention of making any change in this respect.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that he has been handed a Letter from a retired Officer in the Indian Army, stating that at a regimental dinner given by the Officers of the Staffordshire Yeomanry at Lichfield last year, the Bishop, Dean, and one of the Canons of Lichfield were pelted with oranges, and obliged to retire from the room under the escort of the Colonel, and that at the Yeomanry Ball, during the previous year's training, one of the Officers introduced several women of the town, and that, in consequence, a number of respectable town and country gentry left the room; and, if so, whether, in view of such accusations, he will order the investigation into the conduct of the regiment during training to embrace the specific allegations made by the Officer in question?

The letter referred to in the hon. Member's Question was forwarded to me by the hon. Member himself a few days ago. I have made inquiries as to the allegations contained in the letter, and I find that there is no foundation whatever for them. As to the first part of the Question, the Bishop of Lichfield has personally informed Lord Morley that he has never attended a dinner given by the officers of the Staffordshire Yeomanry. The Dean has written a letter to one of the senior officers of the regiment which I cannot do better than read to the House—

"I hasten to answer your inquiry. It is utterly untrue that I have ever been insulted at any Yeomanry dinner that I have attended, whether at Lichfield or elsewhere. I, as Dean of Lichfield, was present at a dinner given last year by the officers of the Staffordshire Yeomanry at Lichfield. But it is absolutely false that either on that or any other occasion I was pelted with oranges and obliged to leave the room under an escort. On the contrary, I have always been received with marked kindness and respect on such occasions."

As to the second part of the Question, I am informed that there has been no Yeomanry ball at Lichfield for a great many years. I am sure that the House will support me when I say that I cannot too strongly express my opinion cm the conduct of the writer of this letter, who, I am sorry to learn, is a retired officer of the Indian Army. He has recklessly brought these grave charges against the officers of a distinguished regiment on hearsay evidence, apparently without taking any steps to verify the reports which reached him. Under the circumstances, I see no cause for extending the inquiry to previous transactions. The Report of the Court of Inquiry appointed to investigate the recent occurrence at Lichfield has been received, and has been under the consideration of the Military Authorities. The necessary orders will be immediately issued upon it; but until they have been communicated to the General Officer Commanding the District, and the officer commanding the regiment, it would not be proper that they should be made public.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as reported, that a person stated to have become an approver in a capital case in Ireland has committed suicide by hanging himself in his cell in prison; whether the man had been visited in his cell by any of the prosecuting agents of the Government; and, if so, by whom, and with what object; and, whether any light can be cast on the motive of the suicide?

It is a fact that a man named Thomas Kennedy, who had become an approver, and made a confession that he had taken part in a murder, committed suicide as stated. He had been visited by a policeman, and by Mr. Bolton, the Crown Solicitor, who has charge of the prosecution. This was done only at his own request, when he desired to make a statement as to the offence with which he and others were charged. No light can be thrown on the motive of the suicide, except the condition of mind in which a man would be who has owned to have been guilty of murder.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If Mr. John Nelson, of 6, South Anne Street Dublin, was, on the 13th ult. fined by Mr. Woodlock, Divisional Magistrate, Dublin, on a summons charging him with

"Causing an obstruction on the public thoroughfare in South Anne Street, by allowing a horse and van to remain thereon,"

although it was the fact that the van was in front of Mr. Nelson's business premises, in a quiet back street, at 9 a.m., and was being loaded with goods for delivery; whether the line was legal; and, what means of redress are open to Mr. Nelson?

In the absence of my hon. and learned Friend he has asked, me to answer this Question. Mr. Nelson was fined for obstructing the public thoroughfare. The van which was the subject of the complaint was one of three which were drawn up in the street at the same time. It was not opposite Mr. Nelson's premises, but opposite those of another person, who has frequently complained as to the obstruction caused in this manner. The van was standing for over an hour when it was not being loaded. The street is not a quiet back street, but an important thoroughfare. The summons was taken out under Section 6 of 5 Vict. c. 24; and I see no reason to doubt that the fine was legal.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government have entered into any provisional arrangement with the Australian Colonies with reference either to New Guinea, or to the islands of the Western Pacific generally?

The House may remember that in July of last year the Secretary of State, in a despatch addressed to the Administrator of Queensland, said that in order to place Her Majesty's Government in a position to consider proposals for any decided action in the Australasian Archipelago it was necessary that the Australian Colonies should combine together effectively and provide the cost of carrying out any policy which it might be decided to adopt. Well, a Conference of the Colonies subsequently assembled, and passed some very clear and decided Resolutions, which, however, have not yet been adopted or ratified by all the Colonies who were represented at the Conference. Lord Derby, therefore, seeing that time was passing away, sent, in the May of this year, a Circular Despatch to all the Australian Colonies and New Zealand, of which the following is an extract:—

"As, therefore, in the absence of any joint action by the Colonies, Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to deal with those questions of policy to which I have referred, and some further delay seems unavoidable, it may be desirable that your Government should consider with the Government of the other Australasian Colonies whether there may not be advantage in making provision for the intervening period in the manner suggested by me in paragraph 7 of my despatch of July 11 last to Sir A. H. Palmer. As I then stated, Her Majesty's Government are confident that no Foreign Power contemplates interference with New Guinea; but in the absence of any controlling authority, it is always possible that the subjects of a Foreign Power might require the protection or intervention of their Government; and British subjects, also, by coming into collision with the Natives, or by setting up claims to land, might cause complications which would give much trouble hereafter. Her Majesty's Government are disposed to think that there should be a High Commissioner, or at least a Deputy Commissioner, with large powers of independent action, stationed on or near the Eastern coasts of New Guinea, and that he should be furnished with a steamship independent of Her Majesty's Naval Squadron, and with a staff sufficient to enable him to exercise protection in the name of the Queen over those shores. The cost of this arrangement cannot be accurately estimated, as I have previously stated; but if one or more Colonies will secure to Her Majesty's Government the payment of a sum of (say) £15,000 during the year ending 1st June, 1885, they will be prepared to take immediate steps for establishing the High Commissioner's jurisdiction, and will render to the contributing Governments an account of the expenditure incurred."

Within the last few days we have received replies by which we are informed that the Australian Colonies agree to our proposals, and consent to find the contribution of £15,000 a-year. We shall, therefore, without delay name an additional Commissioner or Commissioners, and proceed to carry out the arrangements suggested, and can at more leisure consider the bearings of the larger questions.

Would the hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House the despatch in question?

said, it would be laid on the Table in the course of a week or a fortnight.

Under what Act or Acts will this Commissioner have jurisdiction?

Under the same Acts as the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, considering the alarm throughout Europe at the spread of Asiatic cholera, and in view of the fact that there is so often a deficiency of salt found in the blood of persons dying from this disease, and that vast numbers of the Natives of India are not able to procure a sufficiency of salt, Her Majesty's Government will at once abolish the Salt Tax in India?

I have no reason to believe that want of salt has any connection with cholera in India. It is not the case that vast numbers of the Natives are unable to procure sufficient salt. Extension of railway communication and recent reductions in the tax have made salt more plentiful and cheaper than it previously was. Thus, in the North-West Provinces, the part of India most remote from the sources of salt supply, the mean price of salt in the autumn of 1873 was 15 lbs. the rupee, or a little over 1½d. per lb. In the autumn of 1883 it was 22 lbs. the rupee, or rather over 1d. per lb., a decrease of about one-third. The net revenue from salt is now about £5,750,000 sterling, and there is no probability that the surplus will be sufficient to justify the surrender of this large sum.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the case that, since 1882, the Excise regulations respecting the salt monopoly have been made more strict in the Madras Presidency; whether the number of Natives sentenced to fine or imprisonment for offences against these Laws exceeded 9,000 in the year 1882–3; and, if a large proportion of these sentences were passed on men who had obtained salt by mixing the earth of their grounds with water; whether it is the case that the late reduction in the Salt Duty in Madras amounted to twenty per cent., and that already the demand has so much increased that the Salt Revenue has risen to within 4 per cent of its former amount; and, whether the Government intend to give the native population the inestimable boon of further reductions in the Salt Duties?

(1.) In 1882 the Madras Salt Laws were amended, and made in some respects more strict; (2.) the number of persons convicted in 1882–3 of offences against the Salt Laws was 8,399. The number is less than that of 1879–80 before the amendment of the Salt Laws, when the convictions were 9,678. A large proportion of the convictions were for the illicit manufacture of salt from salt earth. (3.) The salt tax in Madras was reduced 20 per cent in March, 1882. Comparing the years 1880–1 and 1882–3 the loss of Revenue caused by this reduction is 9 per cent. (4.) Considering the present state of the finances of India there is no immediate probability of a further reduction in the Salt Tax, which has in the greater part of India been lowered by 33 per cent to 39 per cent within the last seven years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, On what principle the urban exemption from Passenger Duty is refused to the Metropolitan Railway between Finchley Road Station and Kilburn (otherwise Brondesbury) Station, considering that from Kilburn to various parts of London there are 710 omnibus journeys every day?

The Cheap Trains Act, 1883, provides that the lower rate of Passenger Duty shall be payable on the fares charged between any two or more stations, when the Board of Trade are satisfied and certified that such stations are within an area which have a continuous urban as distinguished from a rural and surburban character. Between Finchley Road Station and Brondesbury Station, the Metropolitan Railway passes for some distance through a rural or surburban district, and the Board of Trade are consequently unable to grant the certificate required by the Statute.

asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state what is the extent of the territory in regard to which the claim of Germany to a Protectorate over Angra Pequena will be admitted by Her Majesty's Government?

The Question cannot be answered pending the negotiations for a settlement, which are still proceeding.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury Why the Report of the Civil Service Commissioners just published does not contain, as usual, the specimen papers given to candidates at examinations for the Civil Service?

In order to reduce the bulk of the Appendix to the Annual Report of the Civil Service Commissioners, the specimens of examination papers will in this and future years be published and offered for sale in a separate volume. That for 1884 will be on sale very shortly.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the promise given in the House on several occasions that, in cases in which the Lord Lieutenant of a county declined without reasonable grounds to recommend a Catholic for appointment to the Commission of the Peace, the Lord Chancellor would not be slow to exercise his inherent power of appointing to that office, has not been held to apply in the case of Mr. Martin Langton, recommended by the principal Catholic inhabitants of Bray, county Wicklow; whether he is aware that Mr. Langton recently acted as secretary to an important meeting, held at Bray, at which a Resolution was passed, strongly condemning the action of Lord Meath and the Wicklow magistracy in censuring Government for dismissing Lord Rossmore from the Commission of the Peace; whether he is aware that Mr. Langton, in common with the great majority of the people of Bray, successfully opposed Lord Meath in regard to certain conditions sought to be imposed upon them in connection with the new Town Hall; and, whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant to suggest to the Lord Chancellor a reconsideration of the requisition submitted to him in this case? and, if not, whether he will lay the Papers and Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

I have already stated, in reply to a former Question, that, in the Lord Chancellor's opinion, the Lord Lieutenant of the County did not act unreasonably in declining to recommend Mr. Langton for the Commission of the Peace, and that the Lord Chancellor had declined to place him in the Commission. What has happened in this case is, therefore, not at variance with my statement to which the hon. Member refers. It is entirely for the Lord Chancellor to consider and determine in each case whether the Lord Lieutenant of the County is unreasonable or otherwise; and I do not intend to advise the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to suggest to the Lord Chancellor a reconsideration of Mr. Langton's case. I cannot lay on the Table any Correspondence between the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Meath in reference thereto. I am advised that such Correspondence is of a highly confidential character. With regard to the meetings mentioned in the Question, I am able to state that they had no effect whatever on the Lord Chancellor's mind in coming to the conclusion which he did.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Memorial from the engrossing clerks in the office of the General Register of Sasines, Edinburgh, to the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, dated 12th May last, and of the answer of the Lords of the Treasury thereto?

I do not think this is a matter of sufficient public importance to justify the presentation of the Correspondence in question, and I, therefore, feel some difficulty in doing so; but I will show it to the hon. Gentleman if he will confer with me.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in the report that Dr. Hancock, Clerk of the Crown and Haneper in Ireland, is about to retire; how long has he held that office and when was he appointed; and, if he retires, what pension will he be entitled to?

Owing to seriously impaired health, Dr. Hancock has recently sent in to the Lord Chancellor his resignation, which the Lord Chancellor has not yet acted on. Dr. Hancock was appointed to his present office in May, 1882, and the short period of his service does not entitle him to any pension in respect of that office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the amount of Mr. George Bolton's bankruptcy, has he effected any arrangement with his creditors, and are the Government supplying him with funds to carry on his private suits against United Ireland; and, as the Government guaranteed that they would insist that Mr. Bolton should, as far as possible meet his obligations, have any steps been taken to impound his salary?

The Government have called upon Mr. Bolton to take steps to prevent the recurrence of complaints respecting his affairs; and Mr. Bolton has filed a petition in the Bankruptcy Court, which is at present pending. Mr. Bolton states his liabilities to be about £90,000, principally secured on real estate. The matter being before the Court, the Government cannot take any action or express any opinion with respect to it. The Government are not supplying Mr. Bolton with funds for the purpose of carrying on his private suits against United Ireland.

If the Government are not supplying Mr. Bolton with funds, how is it possible that he is able to pay large sums almost daily to counsel?

said, he would place the Question upon the Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the married soldiers' quarters in the Cambridge Cottages at Woolwich are overcrowded; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken to remedy this evil?

I find, on inquiry, that some of the married quarters referred to are overcrowded, and I have given orders that extra accommodation shall be afforded.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the existence of cholera in France, this Country is "threatened with a formidable epidemic disease" within the meaning of the Public Health Act; and, whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to immediately make regulations under the Public Health Act—

"For the promotion of cleansing, ventilation, and disinfection, and the guarding against the spread of disease?"

The President of the Local Government Board has asked me to answer this Question. At present we do not consider that this country is, for the purpose of the Public Health Act, 1875, threatened with a formidable epidemic disease. Orders made under Section 130 of that Act are now in force, and they will avail for dealing with any case of cholera that may chance to be brought into English ports. The Sanitary Authorities already possess very large powers for securing the cleansing, ventilation, and disinfection of premises, and for dealing with ordinary infectious disease; and it is, of course, very desirable that the authorities should use these powers to the utmost; but at the present moment it does not seem necessary to put in force the exceptional provisions of Section 134.

Has the Local Government Board formed any estimate of the time that will necessarily elapse in the event of a visitation of cholera between the issuing of orders for these regulations and the putting of them into operation by the Sanitary Authorities?

Yes; all these considerations have been thought over.

Would it take a month or two months?

was understood to say that he preferred to withhold his opinion on this point.

said, the attention of the Board had been directed to a telegram stating that a steamer from Lisbon to Cardiff was reported to have two cases of cholera on board. They had telegraphed to the Local Authorities pointing out that this was one of the cases in which the special regulations were applicable, and asking them to apply them. The regulations would prevent anyone landing from the vessel without the permission of the authorities.

said, that if the country was unfortunately visited with cholera, he would ask again for the information which the hon. Gentleman now said was confidential. He would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as President of the Irish Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the existence of cholera in France, Ireland is "threatened with a formidable epidemic disease" within the meaning of the Public Health Act; whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board to make regulations under the Public Health Act—

"For the promotion of cleansing, ventilation, and disinfection, and guarding against the spread of disease;"

and, whether the Board will promptly notify to the Irish sanitary authorities how they intend to exercise in each case the powers conferred upon them by the third section of the Epidemic and other Diseases Prevention Act, 1883, so that the sanitary authorities may have timely notice of their responsibilities in the event of an outbreak of cholera unfortunately occurring in that Country?

The Local Government Board do not think that at present Ireland is threatened with cholera in such a manner as to render it necessary to issue special regulations under the 149th Section of the Public Health Act for the prevention of the spread of infectious disease—namely, by arrangements for the speedy interment of the dead, house-to-house visitation, &c. The Board will take care to give timely notice to the Sanitary Authorities, on whom it will devolve to carry out the provisions of that enactment, should it become necessary to make an order under the 3rd section of the Act of last year to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he would have any objection to placing in some position in the House that would be accessible to Members, a specimen of the courbash, or ordinary whip, now in use in Egypt, so as to afford Members an opportunity of inspecting it, in the same manner as they were enabled to inspect the official cat-o'-nine-tails during the discussion of the Army Discipline Bill?

I do not think any good purpose would be served by complying with the suggestion of the hon. Member, and I hope he will not press it. A very clear distinction, which I am sure he will see, exists between what is now proposed, and what was done in the Army Discipline Act. In that case the Army Discipline Bill was under discussion in the House, and there was a large number of persons in favour of the retention of the instrument mentioned; but as regards the courbash, there is no Bill relating to it before the House. It has been abolished in Egypt, and nobody is anxious to see it restored.

asked the Postmaster General, in reference to his undertaking that in future all vacancies in the position of female telegraph learners in Dublin would be filled by open competitive examination, Whether the programme of such examination is now obtainable?

There are no vacancies at present in the Female Telegraph Staff, Dublin. Due notice will be given when the first competitive examination will be held. The time will depend upon the number of vacancies. The subjects of examination will be the same as those prescribed for similar situations in London, and if the hon. Member wishes to see these regulations I will send him a copy.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to restore Mr. Clifford Lloyd to his former position in Ireland?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., was acting in the temporary office of Special Resident Magistrate when he was granted leave of absence and accepted service in Egypt. The office of Special Resident Magistrate has since been discontinued, though the hon. Member is aware that certain similar arrangements are still in existence. Mr. Clifford Lloyd's leave expires in September next. I am not aware of anything to preclude him from resuming duty in Ireland then.

Does Mr. Clifford Lloyd propose to introduce the courbash into Ireland?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that, throughout the progress of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's endeavours to effect salutary and merciful reforms in the Egyptian system of prison administration, he had the constant support of Sir Evelyn Baring, notwithstanding the—

"Painful differences of opinion between Mr. Clifford Lloyd and high European and Egyptian officials,"

mentioned by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; and, whether any successor has yet been appointed in the room of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, if so, whether he has received instructions to carry on Mr. Clifford Lloyd's suspended reforms from the point at which they have been temporarily interrupted?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd received the general support of Sir Evelyn Baring as regards the substance of the reforms in the administration of the prisons. No successor has, as yet, been appointed to Mr. Clifford Lloyd.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, What opportunity will be afforded, in case the House should agree to the withdrawal of the Merchant Shipping Bill, for a reply to be made to the charges which were brought against the shipowners to whom he referred in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill; and, whether that speech has since been officially published, and is now being circulated; and, at whose expense, and with what object?

In reply to the hon. Member, I must disclaim his statement that I have brought charges against the shipowners to whom I referred in my speech on the second reading of the Bill. On that occasion I stated facts to illustrate my contention that over-insurance largely prevails; but, in the present state of the law, shipowners who over-insure are not guilty of any offence. In further answer to the Question, I have to say, first, that if any of the persons referred to wish to dispute the accuracy of the facts stated, the columns of the Press are, of course, open to them, and, as a matter of fact, several persons have written to the papers criticizing my statements. I am glad to say that I have been able in every case to produce evidence confirming my original statement; and that, with one trifling exception, which has no bearing on the general argument, I have not found occasion to withdraw or modify a single fact or figure stated to the House. In the second place, I have to point out that I shall lay before the Royal Commission which is to be appointed to inquire into the subject all the facts stated in my speech, and many others of a similar kind; and that shipowners who are inclined to question these statements will, of course, have an opportunity of producing their evidence in opposition. The hon. Gentleman asks me whether my speech has been officially published, and is now being circulated? It has not been officially published; but, as I have already stated to the House, I have supplied copies of the Parliamentary Report to shipowners and others who have applied to me for it, and are interested in the subject. The hon. Gentleman inquires at whose expense, and with what object, the speech has been circulated. The object is the information of the public on a matter of national importance; and as regards the expense, I have hitherto assumed the entire responsibility myself, but I shall be very happy to receive a contribution in aid from the hon. Member.

said, that after what had fallen from, the right hon. Gentleman, he would give Notice that on the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair he would ask the leave of the House to adjourn the debate in order to discuss a question of urgent public importance—namely, the preservation of life and property at sea.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, inasmuch as he has decided to withdraw the Merchant Shipping Bill, and is still of opinion that the present state of the Law occasions a preventable loss of life, he will take care that competent officials of the Board of Trade carry out to the letter their duties, with a view to preventing unseaworthy or overladen ships leaving our ports?

In reply to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to say that the officials of the Board of Trade will continue to carry out their arduous duties to the best of their abilities; but I have already given my reasons, in the debate upon the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill, for thinking that it is impossible for them to exercise such a supervision as would effectually prevent unseaworthy or overladen ships from leaving our ports.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, having regard to the great need which exists in the thickly peopled part of London lying immediately to the east of the City and north of the Tower of London for an open space available to the inhabitants for recreation, he will consider the propriety of opening to the public the piece of ground which lies between the moat of the Tower and the streets, and is now not used for any purpose of the War Office?

I will communicate with the authorities of the Tower, and see whether it is possible to do anything in the direction indicated in the hon. Gentleman's Question.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the terrible smells in the neighbourhood of Covent Garden Market; whether, having regard to the great prevalence of small pox in the Metropolis, and of a possible visitation of cholera, he will insist upon some vigorous steps being taken to cleanse this filthy and dangerous quarter; whether his attention has also been called to the smells from the sewers running parallel with the Thames, on the Chelsea Embankment, between Shelley House and New Battersea Bridge; and, whether, in this case also, he will insist on proper sanitary precautions being taken?

I beg to inform the hon. Baronet that Covent Garden and the neighbouring streets are not under the control of the Metropolitan Board of Works; but I have communicated with the Clerk of the Strand District Board, and urgently requested that attention may be paid to the matter. As regards the latter part of the Question, I was not aware that there was any smell from the sewers on the Chelsea Embankment; but I have given directions for the matter to be looked into, and all necessary remedial measures to be taken at once.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to proceed with the Criminal Law Amendment (Protection of Minors) Bill, which has recently passed the House of Lords?

I am anxious to go on with the Bill.

asked, Whether it was not the fact that the existing law for the protection of minors was sufficient if properly administered; and if the Home Secretary thought the sentence of seven weeks' imprisonment upon Lord St. Leonards was sufficient punishment for having committed an assault upon a servant?

I have often said that I have no authority over the magistrates, nor over the Recorder of the City of London. Whatever my opinion may be, I could not make the sentence greater.

I wish to know whether it is not a fact that the noble Lord had been imprisoned during the whole of the last seven weeks?

How should I know?

Then I beg to give Notice that I will ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman, Whether the noble Lord ought to have been imprisoned for seven weeks; and whether he had served the full time for which he was sentenced?

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If, before the proposed Royal Commission is appointed, it is intended to give the House an opportunity of considering whether there is any sufficient warrant, either by statute or Order in Council, for the continued existence of the Board of Trade as at present constituted; whether the ex-officio appointment originally held by the Speaker of the House of Commons of Ireland, as well as the other appointments originally held by gentlemen specially connected with the trade of Ireland, have been filled up, and by whom, or if Ireland is without representation at the Board of Trade; and, if the proposed Royal Commission will inquire into the constitution and functions of the Board of Trade generally, including the exercise of patronage by the Department, or if it is intended that the inquiry shall be confined to the Marine Department alone?

In reply to the third Question of the hon. Member, I have to refer him to the answer made by me to the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. C. M. Palmer) on June 28, when I said that the inquiries of the proposed Royal Commission would include the administration of the Marine Department of the Board of Trade. In reply to his second Question, I have to refer him to previous statements, to the effect that the ex officio members of the Board of Trade have never been summoned during the present century. The list of such members includes all Privy Councillors in Ireland holding office in that country; but as the Committee never meets, the representation is purely formal. No quorum is required by the Order in Council; and, therefore, the act of one member of the Board—namely, the President — is sufficient; and the business of the Office is conducted, as in other Offices, by a single Minister of State, aided by a Parliamentary Secretary and a permanent Staff. There is nothing to prevent the President from being of either nationality; and, as a matter of fact, one of my Predecessors in recent years was an Irishman. As regards the first Question, I may remind the hon. Member that he had a Motion on the subject on the Paper, which I came down to the House to answer; but the subject did not attract a sufficient number of Members to make a House. I am unable, on behalf of the Government, to offer the hon. Member any facilities for the discussion of his Motion.

asked whether the House was not "Counted out" at the instigation of an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Lee)?

Most certainly not at my instigation; there is not the slightest foundation for that allegation.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to a new election ordered for the electoral division of Athenry, in the union of Loughrea, Whether Mr. E. W. Lambert, of Castle Ellen, a landlord residing in the electoral division, did on the 26th ult. visit the house of a voter named Kennedy, in the townland of Park, during Kennedy's absence, and said to his wife, "I want you to vote for O'Connor. Don't you know I can often injure you if I like;" whether the same Mr. Lambert on the following day, in the town of Athenry, said to a voter named Healy, "if you don't vote for O'Connor you will be sorry," the said voter being a tenant on his own or his father's property; whether Mr. Lambert has been for some time and is at present under police protection; and, whether he canvassed the tenants in several townlands without any police protection; and, if so, whether it will be now withdrawn?

I am informed that Mr. P. W. Lambert, described in the Question as a landlord residing in the electoral division of Athenry, is not a landlord, and does not reside in that division; and, furthermore, that he did not use the words alleged, or any words resembling them, either to Mrs. Kennedy or to Mr. Healy. Mr. Lambert is not at present under police protection. He is, on rare occasions, given protection, when it is considered necessary. He did not ask for, or receive, protection when canvassing votes, or while the Poor Law elections were proceeding.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Department, with reference to a proposal to grant the rank of Lieutenant Colonel to Staff Paymasters of five years' standing, Whether, as a matter of fact, Staff Paymasters have not always held the rank of Major?

As a matter of fact, Staff Paymasters have held the honorary rank of Major since the formation of the Army Pay Department in 1878. Perhaps I may be allowed to add that, by the courtesy of the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for West Sussex (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), my attention was privately called to a very Blight error on this subject in my reply of the 12th ultimo to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), when I said that the rank of major had recently been conferred on Staff Paymasters. I should have said that the rank was conferred on the formation of the Pay Department in 1878. But as there is not now, and never has been, any intention of conferring the honorary rank of lieutenant colonel on Staff Paymasters, and as the date on which the rank of major had been first assigned to them was not material to the understanding of my reply, it seemed to me unnecessary to take up the time of the House by an explanation of what appears to me so trifling a mistake.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to "An Interview with a Leading Dynamiter in Paris," published on 1st July in The Evening News, and especially to the last paragraph; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, in concert with the French Government, to watch known conspirators and dynamiters, and prevent the throats indicated in that paragraph from being carried out?

I think the House will see that this is a Question which I ought not to answer. My sole object, in which I only partially succeed, is to keep the measures of the police as secret as possible. To state those measures in this House would only defeat the object they have in view.

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether it is not the fact that there is a regular manufactory of false news by penny-a-liners in Paris?

Yes, Sir; I am inclined to admit that.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would consider the propriety of so far modifying Rule 14 of the National Commissioners of Education in Ireland as to permit of the second half of the cost of a school site under that rule being advanced by the Board of Works on receiving proper guarantees for its repayment?

, in reply, said, that two-thirds of the money was advanced for the purchase of these sites; and it was a question for the Treasury as to whether the other one-third would be advanced. If the Secretary to the Treasury were questioned on the matter, he, no doubt, would ask the advice of the Irish Government.

What advice would the Irish Government give?

said, he could not state off-hand what advice the Irish Government would give on a matter involving such a large expenditure of money.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a Memorial has been received by him praying for a free pardon for Bryan Kilmartin, of Arran; if the grounds on which the free pardon has been prayed for are, that a declaration properly attested was made by a dying man in America, to the effect that he was the real culprit, and that Kilmartin was innocent; if all necessary names accompanied this declaration; and, if steps have been taken by him to ascertain the truth of this declaration?

A Memorial has been received as stated, and it is now the subject of inquiry and consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government is in possession of any reliable evidence as to whether corporal punishment is employed by the Mudirs and other Egyptian employés in the collection of the revenue; and, if there be no such evidence, whether, in view of the statements of Mr. Clifford Lloyd with regard to the arbitrary acts of the Mudirs, he will cause such inquiry to be made; and, if it should be proved that corporal punishment is employed in the collection of the revenue, he will take measures to prevent this occurring in future, so long as order and tranquillity are maintained in Egypt by British troops?

I am informed that there is no evidence in the possession of Her Majesty's Government which would sustain the accusation supposed in the first portion of the Question. With regard to the second portion, I have to say that inquiries will be made on the subject; and in regard to the third portion, if the effect of that inquiry should be to establish the accusation, measures will be taken to prevent the thing occurring in future.

Has Mr. Clifford Lloyd been asked on what grounds he made the statement in which the Prime Minister says there is practically no truth?

I am not able to answer that Question without Notice.

Have the Government any objection to agree to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the matter?

That is a Question that I should have thought had better be put after Notice; but my first impression is adverse to the course suggested.

I beg to give Notice that I shall ask the Prime Minister the Question to-morrow.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will advise Her Majesty to create such a number of Peers as will render it more difficult than it is at present for that House to throw out measures introduced into this House by Liberal Ministries, and passed by this House by large majorities; and, whether he will submit to the appreciation of this House and the Country a measure which will insure that in future important Bills, which have received the assent of the Representatives of the people, will become Law without unnecessary delay? He wished also to ask, whether it was not in the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that in 1832 the House of Lords altered their intention of throwing out a second time the Reform Bill brought in by the Ministry of the day as soon as the possibility of a large creation of Liberal Peers was made necessary?

The remarkable events of 1832 are matters of history, on which I have no exclusive information. Certainly, the hon. Member can put his own construction upon them, just as any other Member of this House can. With regard to the first part of the Question, I do not think that anything has occurred which would justify Her Majesty's Government in answering any inquiries involving the supposition of their advising Her Majesty to create a great number of Peers with the view of influencing the decisions of the House of Lords. In respect to the second part of the Question, the same answer will apply. We have no measures which we are prepared to submit to the House for the purpose of securing the passage "elsewhere" of Bills which have passed through this House; but I may say, Sir, upon that point, that I do think the first duty of the House of Commons, with regard to giving greater efficiency for the conduct of Public Business, is to consider what measures may be requisite to promote its own efficiency, and instead of taking the beam out of the eye of the House of Lords, to take the mote out of its own.

Should it be necessary, I will repeat the first part of the Question at the end of the week.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether his attention has been directed to the present state of the Thames in the vicinity of East Greenwich, which is described as closely resembling an open sewer and dangerous to public health; and, whether any steps are being taken to deal with this state of things; and, if so, of what nature?

In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to inform him that the usual instructions were given some time back for the use of deodorising agents at the outfalls when necessary; and attention having been recently called to the fact that, owing to the long continuance of dry weather and consequent reduction to a minimum in the flow of upland water, the smell of sewage has become perceptible in the Thames in the neighbourhood of the outfalls, special instructions have been given, and the Board's engineer has full authority to take all necessary steps.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been drawn to the circumstances of the series of evictions (some executed and others now proceeding) at the suit of Wybrants Olphant, a landlord in the county Donegal; whether, in numerous cases, families have been evicted for non-payment of one year's rent with costs; whether, in one case, the year's rent due was £1 2s., while the costs added to this debt by the proceedings of the landlord were £3 17s. 4d., and, in other cases, the costs bore a similar proportion to the rent; whether these tenants had applied to the Land Commission to have fair rents fixed, but their cases had not been reached up to the date of the evictions, and the evictions took place in consequence of non-payment of the old rents, the justice of which was the question pending before the Land Court; and, whether the Government, in cases where tenants have applied to the Land Courts to have fair rents fixed, will devise some means to protect said tenants against eviction while their cases are pending in the Land Courts?

Sir, in answer to this Question, relating as it does to an Irish subject, I derive my information on it from the Irish Office. Evictions have taken place on the estate which is mentioned in the Question, and most of the persons evicted were evicted in consequence of owing two years' rent. The ejectments previously, in April last, were chiefly for sums from £2 4s. to £6. There was one case at £1, and another at £1 2s.; while in other cases the sums were considerably larger, one being £10 and one £50. With regard to the costs mentioned by the hon. Member, they did not vary in the exact proportion stated in the Question. They ranged from £2 10s. to £3 18s., and it certainly did happen that where the rent was £1 2s. the costs were £2 15s. A number of tenants on the estate applied in January last to have a fair rent fixed, and those cases were pending before the Donegal Sub-Commission. The Land Commissioners understoood that evidence has been taken; but that the lands have not yet been visited for inspection by the Sub-Commissioners. The Land Commission have no knowledge that any of the persons evicted were amongst those whose cases were pending before the Court of Sub-Commissioners, and further time to ascertain the facts of these cases will have to be taken, inasmuch as the district is very remote. It is a distance of 15 miles from the nearest telegraph station, and worse still, the telegraph communication is at present interrupted. In answer to the further Question of the hon. Member, I may say that the Land Commissioners have taken notice, very property, that under the 13th section of the Irish Land Act, where proceedings shall have been taken to evict a holding for non-payment of rent whilst an application for settlement is pending, that the Court has power to suspend those proceedings for eviction until a judicial rent is fixed.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. Corry Connellan has been since 1868 in receipt of a pension of £436 11s. 4d. per annum; whether this is the official who fled the Country; will he obtain an explanation of the fact that Mr. Connellan's name has been dropped out of this year's Estimates, and ensure its reinsertion if the pension is to be continued; and, can he say where Mr. Connellan now is, and to whom is the money paid?

, in reply, said, he had been asked by the Prime Minister to answer the Question. There was no doubt as to the allegations in the first two paragraphs of the Question. He did not know where Mr. Connellan now was; but the pension was paid through the Bank of Ireland. As regarded the alterations in this year's Estimates, he had already explained to the hon. Member privately the reason for dropping out Mr. Connellan's name. It was wholly apart from any question as to the man's character, and was done with a view to the more compendious publication of the Estimate volume. It was open to the hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum mentioned.

If the Government have no idea of where Corry Connellan is, and if they pay him only through the Bank of Ireland, what is to prevent this pension from being paid on to the end of time?

said, the strictest measures were taken with regard to the life certificates in this case.

gave Notice that he would move the reduction of the Estimates by the sum of £436 11s. 4d., paid by Her Majesty's Government for the last 15 years to a man who fled from the country for an unnatural offence.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can now, without detriment to the public interests, state the objects for which considerable quantities of Railway material have been despatched to Suakin; and, whether, in the event of any Railway being constructed from Suakin in the direction of the Nile, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the question of its ultimate use for the purposes of commerce with Central Africa?

As to the first portion of the Question, I have to say that stores of the description which have been sent to the Port of Suakin were sent there in order to bring that port into a state adequate to receive the stores of any other expedition which it might be desirable to send there. With regard to the latter portion of the Question, I think it would be premature to answer a question as to the commercial uses of any railway from Suakin until a decision shall have been taken, or circumstances have become ripe for taking a decision, upon the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the difficulty in making a House on Wednesdays; and if he has considered whether that difficulty may be, in part, due to the Rule which prevents Members who have once entered the House from leaving it until a House has been made; and, if it would be possible to alter the practice, and leave the House open, as on other days?

What I believe to be the case is, that there is no difference in the Rule prevailing on Wednesday in regard to the obligation incumbent on Members entering the House from the Rule applying on other days; but on other days, when the House meets at a quarter to 4, it works differently, because a House must be made before 4 o'clock. In regard to the Rule on Wednesday, which I am informed is felt to some extent at other Morning Sittings, I am not in a position to give an answer, because I do not find there is any clear and distinct opinions prevailing among the authorities of the House or among Members in regard to a change of Rules. If it was clear the convenience would be promoted by such a change it would, of course, be well worth considering.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, under what Standing Order or other Rule of the House is an hon. Member who comes in at 12 on Wednesdays precluded from going out again until a quorum is made?

It is under no Standing Order that the doors are closed; but under the long-established practice of the House. The hon. Member is not correct in saying that no hon. Member is permitted to leave the House; because if any Member applies to the Speaker, the Speaker will give him leave to leave the House though the doors are closed.

asked, Whether hundreds of ships and thousands of workmen are not at present without employment in the shipbuilding ports of the United Kingdom, owing to the depression in the shipping trade; and, whether the Government will appoint a Royal Commission or a Select Committee to inquire into the cause?

I am aware there is a great deal of depression in the shipping trade at the present time; but I do not think it is necessary or expedient to have any special inquiry into the cause, because the cause is perfectly well understood—namely, the great overproduction of ships that has taken place during the last few years. I may mention, in proof of this, some rather extraordinary figures. The tonnage of new ships built in 1881 exceeded 500,000 tons; in 1882 it exceeded 600,000 tons; and last year it was 748,000 tons.

asked whether the shipping industry was not in a state of prosperity in France, whilst it was depressed in this country?

NO; I believe that is not the case.

I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the order of Business. He was, unfortunately, not able to be present on Friday at the time the Motion was made by the Home Secretary, and Tuesdays were given to the Government without our having any information in regard to the various Bills before the House. Perhaps he will be able to tell us now, in the first place, what Business besides Supply will be taken to-night, and what to-morrow? Then we should like him to give us some information in regard to the Bills the Government intend to proceed with, and those they intend to abandon.

In regard to to-morrow, we propose to go forward with the debate on the London Government Bill. With regard to Thursday, according to an arrangement already made, that day will be taken for Supply on the Civil Service Estimates. I cannot yet say what will be done next Monday. In regard to the Bills as to which the right hon. Gentleman asked our intentions, there is a considerable number of those Bills, and they are of considerable interest and importance. I am not able to make a complete statement at the present moment; and, in fact, until after to-morrow I do not think that we can see our way to make a complete statement with regard to Public Business; but I will do my best to be in a condition on Thursday to make as complete a statement as possible with regard to the material Bills which are likely to give rise to any serious discussion.

Is anything besides Supply to be taken to-night?

I think the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill will be taken if there should be time; but it is intended to turn the evening fully to account for the Army Estimates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make such provision that the Business of Supply shall take precedence of questions of secondary importance, so that the scandal of last Session, when Supply was driven off to the close of the Session, may not be repeated?

That is a question which the hon. and learned Member may fairly raise on Thursday, if he be dissatisfied after hearing my statement.

Will the Medical Act Amendment Bill be taken to-night?

No. I ought to say, however, though only to provide against an unlikely contingency, that, in the event of the Army Estimates being got through at an early hour, we shall be glad to go forward with the Universities (Scotland) Bill.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any time is fixed for the next meeting of the Conference?

No, Sir. The financial experts are still considering the financial proposals; but though they are proceeding vigorously with their work, it is not yet sufficiently complete to be laid before the Conference.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the Conference is likely to sit again on this side of Christmas?